Posting photos of A2K members: let's talk about guidelines.

What about a request aterwards to take a picture offline when it turns out it upsets you, is that unreasonable too, McTag, Joe, Thomas?

I havent understood so far if that were the case here, it seems the moderator had to be asked to delete the post instead - in any case, in general, Diane also talked about "those who refuse to .. to take the time to make deletions". That seems as valid a point to be bothered by as any, to me. Like Eva said before, if someone asks you (by PM preferably, rather than in-thread) to take a picture of him/her offline, it seems basic courtesy to do so without making a fuss about it. No?

Those picture(s) made by me - in question - were deleted on my request (osdso asked for it).
The post is still there - posts, to be correct, since osso quoted herself, adding a second picture in that quote (that one is still online).

What about if you take a persons photo off of another website and post it?
Since its already posted,then isnt the expectation of privacy gone?

So.............wrapping this whole thing up, here are my suggestions:

When one meets with an A2K group, ask each person if they want their pictures posted. Don't post any picture of anyone who said, "no", (unless their backs are turned, and you can't see their faces.)

PM the "yes" people, with a copy of the picture that you want to post, and ask permission to post a particular picture. (Unless that person has given you a blanket "ok" to post any and all of their images).

Don't post any picture, even of those members who have given a blanket "ok", if you think that the picture is terribly unflattering to them.

I really don't know, how many of you actually photograph yourself.

You may look again at the pics from Chicag, London, San Francisco, New York, Boston or gere at my place (or what meeting I forgot to mention):

the best are
a) where everyone is on it,
b) which are made spontaniously.

Cutting a person out? Using photshop to 'smear' the face? Not post it?
(I couldn't post about 50% of those from the last London meeting! No-one, besides Mrs. Walter and me saw them, btw.)

(Another thing is that some of us got photographed - but couldn't picture that person. )

PM-ing the "yes" people sounds okay - but certainly takes more than 2% of the time nimh suggested yesterday.

No-one forced me to photograph. I do it as a hobby and like it.

But when posting pics (here) turns out to be so much more work than it actually already is ... Oh, I said already, I wouldn't photograph at meetings any more

Lookit, let's not make this complicated.

Tell anyone with a camera about whether you want your picture taken.
Photogs can help by making the camera's presence known.

Photogs then use their best judgement about which photos to post.
(Believe you me, I've deleted some horrors.)

You don't want to take the risk of looking foolish or something?

Speak up.

We all, for better or worse, look as we do. Sometimes the camera catches us at a bad moment, but it is just a moment, not your entire existence or presence, let it be.

Joe(don't shoot my left side, it's the only one I've got)Nation

Hey I've nearly finished my coffee. It was a struggle though, because there was a hurricane raging at the time, in the cup.

Mc(I think I'm so funny)T

To clarify, or maybe muddy,


The photo I didn't like is here, in a post by Walter. It was edited by mods in the original thread, when Walter asked them at my request, and I think I also asked, but don't now remember for sure. I didn't ask for it to be removed in this second thread, and gave a link to it earler in this topic, after I'd made the decision to 'let it be'. If it's in a third place in some quote by me, other than a link to it this second posting of it, I haven't noticed it.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2048319#2048319



I still think one should be able to have a photo of oneself deleted if so desired, and I surmise the mods have no problem with that. (Perhaps they will speak to the issue.) I should have handled it better, though.

No, it's not unreasonable -- and nobody has yet presented a credible case where somebody received such a request and ignored or denied it.


Please refer to the posts in question: (1) Osso asked Walter to have the moderators remove the picture, thereby citing Walter, and re-posting the picture in the process. (2) The moderators then removed it and its citations "due to member request". (Here is where the original used to be. See?) The moderators didn't say which member that was; Osso never claimed that she had to escalate it to the moderators. In fact, we have every reason to trust Walter's account that the moderators removed the link on his request.


It would be valid if the underlying facts were true, but they were not. People didn't do things Diane (plausibly) wanted them to do, but for all the facts she came up with, nobody ever refused to do them. I have no idea why she had to talk about people refusing to do things when they simply didn't do them.

Sorry if I sound aggravated, but this is beginning to remind me of those political threads we all love. Everybody's paranoia about the other side is feeding on everybody else's paranoia, and nobody seems to care about the facts underlying the accusations anymore.

It could be so simple: If you're interested in avoiding unwanted posting of pictures and you're a motive, speek up to the photographer. If you're interested in avoiding unwanted posting and you're a photographer, ask your prospective motives. If you do neither of these, you were asking for trouble and have no valid complaint that you got what you asked for.

Since one cannot edit a post after someone else posted, one has to ask the moderator to delete a picture. Plus, I think by the time osso objected to the only picture in question, Walter was asleep. Looks like you're looking for
a scape goat here, nimh.

I'd deleted that photo from the server. Perhaps it is still stored in your cache or so?

(Actually, I'm thinking now of deleting all of my linked photos with members in it (so possible), hoping that will calm this discussion a bit.)

That's right, Thomas, I don't doubt at all that Walter asked the mods to delete it. (I might have too, or might not have, can't rememeber).

I'm not at all angry, Walter. I think a fair part of this was my fault/problem.

I thought, or think I think, the photo is still there, but you may be right that it is somehow in my cache - but I am content with leaving it there now if it is in fact on that thread.

An interesting image by Walter looking into my bedroom.

[Actually my best black & white photo I'd made in the USA - but I had never posted it here!]

The picture is gone from the web, but will survive in your cache for a time. If you delete your "temporary internet files" -- but don't do this if you have cookies, stored website passwords etc. that you want to keep -- and if you then refresh the page that you linked to, you will see an "image unavailable" icon instead of the picture. If you don't delete your temporary internet files, the image will survive in your cache until your browser has scheduled it to expire. And so it will for the rest of us.

Post as many photos of me as you like, Walter. I can't understand people who say they don't photograph well. I do, and I always look fantastic!

Thanks for the explanation, Thomas, and fine with me.

Too bad Walter wasn't on Wrigley Field when the Cubs went down 10-5

I may have been slightly less than fantastic that day. But still pretty damned good.